DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's submission filed on 05 February 2026, has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 05 February 2026, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 06 November 2025, are acknowledged.
The listing of Claims filed 05 February 2026, have been examined. Claims 8, 14, 22 and 23 are pending. Claims 8 is amended and is supported by the originally-filed disclosure. Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-21 and 24-30 are canceled and no new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
The entry of the amended claims has been acknowledged. The applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed in response to the prior Office Action have been fully considered.
The amendments to independent claim 8 narrow the scope by reciting a closed Markush group of insecticide pairings, a stabilization system “consisting of” a steric stabilizer and a static stabilizer selected from closed lists, an HLB range of 10-18 for the steric stabilizer, and a steric-to-static stabilizer ratio of about 5:1 to about 1:5 by weight. However, as explained herein, the cited prior art, alone or in combination, continues to teach or render obvious each of these limitations, and the amendments do not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.
The substantive arguments traversing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive, for the reasons set forth below in the Response to Arguments and claims 8, 14, 22 and 24 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of a combination of the previously cited art. In addition, the amendments have introduced new issues with respect to compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites "a particle size distribution D50 ranging from 2 micron to 10 micron," and claim 23 recites "a particle size distribution D90 ranging from 10 micron to 20 micron." These claims are indefinite for failing to specify critical parameters that affect the measurement of particle size.
Particle size measurements, particularly D50 and D90 values, can vary significantly depending on the measurement technique employed (e.g., laser diffraction, dynamic light scattering, sedimentation, microscopy), the sample preparation method (e.g., with or without sonication, dilution factor, dispersing medium), the data analysis parameters (e.g., optical model used, software algorithms), and whether the reported values are volume-based, number-based, or intensity-based. The specification does not specify which measurement technique should be used, under what conditions, or how the data should be analyzed. Without such parameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a given composition falls within the claimed particle size ranges.
To overcome these rejections, the applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to provide clearer boundaries, such as by correcting phrasing, clarifying the Markush group recitation of insecticides (e.g., remove the extraneous “and”), and specifying the measurement technique and conditions for the particle size limitations (e.g., wherein particles of the aqueous insecticidal composition have a particle size distribution, as measured by laser diffraction in an aqueous dispersing medium based on volume distribution, comprising at least one of a D50 particle size of from 2 µm to 10 µm or a D90 particle size of from 10 µm to 20 µm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 14, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-20110033436-A1; publication date: 10 February 2011) in view of Lin (CN-102388892-A; publication date: 28 March 2012) and Torrent-Parker and Shetty (US-20080318881-A1; published 25 December 2008, hereinafter referred to as “Torrent-Parker”) and as evidence by DeSousa (WO-2021127126-A1; publication date: 24 June 2021).
Chen discloses a stable aqueous insecticidal composition (Abstract) wherein, “The amount of the insect control agent employed is preferably about 1% w/w to about 99% w/w of the entire formulation.” (¶[0060]), overlapping substantially with the instant claim 8 range of 0.1 to 70% and the instant claim 14 range of from about 0.1 to 50% w/w based on a total weight of the aqueous insecticidal composition. Further, Example 4 (¶[0095]-[0096]) uses 33% w/w insecticide concentration, which is encompassed within the claimed range.
Chen teaches the use of dispersants and surfactants to stabilize aqueous insecticidal suspensions. Chen teaches a 5% w/w total weight stabilization system, within the instant claim 14 range, comprising 1% steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 (HBL 10-18; methyl methacrylate graft copolymer), 3% steric stabilizer EO-PO nonionic surfactant (HBL 13-15; poly(ethylene glycol)-block- poly(propylene glycol)), and 1% electrostatic stabilizer Morwet D425 (alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and (C1-C16)-alkylnaphthalenesulfonate/formaldehyde condensate), with the use of 33% w/w insecticide concentration (Example 4; ¶[0095]-[0096]), which is also within the instant claims 8 and 14 ranges. The ratio of the steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 to the electrostatic stabilizer Morwet D425 is 1:1 by weight and the ratio of the combined steric stabilizers EO-PO nonionic surfactant and Atlox 4913 to the electrostatic stabilizer Morwet D425 is 4:1 by weight, both within the instant claim 8 range.
The claimed ratio of steric to static stabilizer of about 5:1 to about 1:5 by weight is a routine optimization of the relative amounts of these conventional formulation ingredients. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adjust the ratio of stabilizers to achieve desired physical properties such as suspension stability (result-effective variable), and the claimed range represents a conventional range for such formulation components and selecting a ratio within the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Chen discloses the use of ethoxylated and propoxylated alcohols, polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers, and polymeric dispersants to sterically stabilize suspension concentrates (¶[0038]-[0044]), including the steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 (HBL 10-18; methyl methacrylate graft copolymer), EO-PO nonionic surfactant (HBL 13-15; poly(ethylene glycol)-block- poly(propylene glycol)) in Example 4 (¶[0095]-[0096]) in aqueous pesticidal formulations and discloses sulfonated aromatic dispersants, including naphthalenesulfonate condensates and lignosulfonates, as electrostatic (static) stabilizers (¶[0046]) and Morwet D425 in Example 4 (alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and (C1-C16)-alkylnaphthalenesulfonate/formaldehyde condensate; ¶[0095]-[0096]), which would be understood by one of skill in the art as having HLB values within the claimed range of 10-18.
In addition, Torrent-Parker teaches (¶[0087]) aqueous liquid compositions of insecticides (such as neonicotinoids) and a stabilizing system that comprises a steric stabilizer (block copolymer of polyalkylene oxide or acrylic copolymer) and a static stabilizer (naphthalene sulfonic acid or lignosulfonic acid) at a ratio of 1:5 to 5:1, including the selection of polyoxyethylene-based nonionic surfactants having HLB values between about 10 and 18 (Abstract, ¶[0037], ¶[045]-[0046], Examples). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relative amounts of polymeric dispersants and surfactants may be adjusted over a broad range depending on formulation needs.
Chen explicitly teaches the formulation without spores present (claim 17) and combining insecticides (such as the neonicotinoid clothianidin; ¶[0023], ¶[0058], ¶[0059], claim 11) to broaden spectrum and improve efficacy (¶[0068]). The diamide insecticide, flubendiamide is listed as a suitable insecticide for the embodiment of the invention (¶[0058]) by Chen, however does not expressly teach the specific binary insecticide combinations recited in claim 8, particularly chlorantraniliprole in combination with chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, flupyrimin, or clothianidin.
Lin teaches that chlorantraniliprole is a well-known insecticide suitable for use in aqueous suspension concentrates as a method of controlling undesired insects when applied to pests at an insecticidally effective amount and that it can be effectively stabilized using a combination of a steric stabilizer, specifically 12 grams of an EO-PO block copolymer (HLB unspecified), and a static stabilizer, specifically 8 grams sodium lignosulfonate (used with 0.5 grams of the diamide insecticide chlorantraniliprole) (Abstract, Example 7, paragraph 45). Lin thus provides the motivation to substitute the insecticide clothianidin in Chen's composition with the known alternative chlorantraniliprole from Lin, expecting to achieve a stable aqueous formulation using conventional formulation auxiliaries.
Lin also teaches insecticidal compositions comprising chlorantraniliprole in combination with other insecticides for enhanced pest control (Abstract). Although Lin does not expressly list every specific insecticide pair recited in claim 8 (e.g., chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, flupyrimin, clothianidin), Lin teaches the general concept of combining chlorantraniliprole with other insecticides in aqueous formulations to broaden the spectrum of activity and that such combinations are desirable in the art to control resistant pests and provide synergistic effects.
DeSousa further demonstrates that such combinations are conventional and recognized for their complementary modes of action (¶[0059]) and DeSousa provides evidence that combinations of chlorantraniliprole with insecticides including chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, and clothianidin were known in the art (claims 7, 8, and 11). Selection of specific known insecticides for combination with chlorantraniliprole would have been a routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by known complementary modes of action and resistance management, as taught generally by Lin and supported by DeSousa.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to substitute one known structurally and functionally similar diamide insecticide, flubendiamide, in the invention disclosed by Chen, for another, chlorantraniliprole, known at the time of the invention in the art to be used for the same purpose of controlling insecticidal pests (as evidenced by Lin), to achieve predictable results. The skilled artisan seeking to broaden the spectrum of pest control or address resistance management would have been motivated to combine chlorantraniliprole with other known insecticides having different modes of action, as taught by Lin, Torrent-Parker, and evidenced by DeSousa.
The selection of chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, flupyrimin, or clothianidin as combination partners for chlorantraniliprole represents a routine optimization of known insecticidal mixtures, yielding predictable results of enhanced or complementary pest control. The prior art establishes that such combinations were known and their use in aqueous formulations with conventional stabilizers would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. Selecting specific concentrations from overlapping concentrations taught in the prior art (as taught by Chen and Torrent-Parker) would have been an obvious matter of routine formulation optimization. The conventional optimization of component concentrations to achieve desired formulation properties, as such ranges, are routine in the art of pesticide formulation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chen, Lin, and Torrent-Parker to arrive at the claimed composition in order to provide stable aqueous suspension concentrates of chlorantraniliprole and binary insecticide combinations (Lin), improve dispersion stability using combined steric and electrostatic stabilization mechanisms (Chen and Torrent-Parker), employ known surfactants and dispersants at optimized ratios as evidenced by DeSousa. The combination merely applies known formulation principles to known insecticides to achieve predictable results.
Regarding particle size, Chen teaches a stable aqueous formulation with, “an active ingredient selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fungicide, an insecticide and combinations thereof of from 100 g/L to 750 g/L and a weight average particle size of 50% from 2 to 25 microns by the laser light scattering method…” (¶[0031]), preferably from 2 to 20 microns for the invention (¶[0077]), thus encompassing the particle size distribution D50 ranging from 2-10 microns as in instant claim 22, and from about 3-4 microns in Example 3 (¶[0093]), encompassed within the instant claim 22 range. Since the composition is subjected to milling, one skilled in the art would easily modify the milling to include particle sizes as defined in instant claim 22 using routine steps alone.
Torrent-Parker teaches (¶[0087]) aqueous liquid compositions of insecticides (such as neonicotinoids) and a stabilizing system that comprises a steric stabilizer (block copolymer of polyalkylene oxide or acrylic copolymer) and a static stabilizer (naphthalene sulfonic acid or lignosulfonic acid) at a ratio of 1:5 to 5:1 (Abstract, ¶[0037], ¶[045]-[0046], Examples). The citation discloses that the composition can have a D50 of 1.5-3 microns and D95 of below 150 microns (¶[0087]), which encompasses the instant claim 23 range. Example 1 discloses the preparation of such a composition wherein the static stabilizer is added to a solution comprising steric stabilizer and subjected to agitation (or mixing). The active ingredient (thiamethoxam) is then added to this, mixed and subjected to milling to reduce the particle size (¶[0084]-[0088]). Example 6 teaches a method of controlling undesired insects using the composition (¶[0113]-[0115]).
Thus, since the composition is subjected to milling, one skilled in the art would easily modify the milling to include particle sizes as defined in instant claim 23 using routine steps, as evidence by DeSousa using insecticides in a suspension concentration formulation wherein, “In an optional step, the dispersion may be wet milled to reduce the average median particle size D50 (50th percentile of cumulative size distribution) to less than about 10 µm and average particle size D90 (90th percentile of cumulative size distribution) to less than about 30 µm. Particle size Dx means that x% of the particles have a particle size smaller than the number indicated. Particle size can be measured by a laser diffraction instrument known to those skilled in the art. Wet milling may be done in process equipment known in the art such as ball mills or colloid mills. In one embodiment, the D50 particle size is less than about 10 µm and the D90 particle size is less than about 30 µm.” (¶[0102]). The exact D50 and D90 numerical ranges are not expressly disclosed, however, particle size is a result-effective variable controlled by milling time and energy, and selecting particle sizes within the claimed ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance stability and sprayability.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to achieve the claimed particle size distribution as a matter of standard and routine practices for one skilled in the art of milling of aqueous suspension concentrates, and easily modified until desired particle size distribution range is achieved, including the particle sizes as defined in the instant claims by using routine steps in view of the Torrent-Parker disclosure and as evidence by DeSousa.
Furthermore, even with minor differences in specific insecticide, achieving the claimed particle size ranges are routine optimizations taught by standard milled aqueous suspension concentrate practice, in the absence of proof of unexpected results. The applicant reiterates this point in the instant specification as, “These aqueous formulations are usually prepared by suspending the solid active ingredient in an aqueous system containing a suitable surfactant for stabilizing the solid particles of the active ingredient and then comminuting the active ingredient particles down to the desired particle size, which is normally below 10 μm.” (¶[0003] and ¶[0176]) and “The slurry was then fed to bead mill to achieve desired particle size. After slurry reaches desired particle size, it was transferred into gelling vessel” (¶[0176]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mill the aqueous insecticidal composition of claim 8 to achieve particle size distributions suitable for suspension concentrates, such as those recited in claims 22 and 23. The recited D50 and D90 ranges represent conventional particle size targets for aqueous suspension concentrates to ensure physical stability and biological efficacy and achieving such particle sizes through routine milling would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 05 February 2026, have been fully considered. As set forth in the previous Office Action, Chen discloses stable aqueous insecticidal suspension concentrates comprising high loadings of insecticidal actives overlapping the claimed ranges, a dual stabilization system including steric stabilizers (e.g., acrylic graft copolymers and EO–PO block copolymers) and electrostatic/static stabilizers (e.g., alkylnaphthalenesulfonate/formaldehyde condensates), stabilizer ratios falling squarely within the claimed range of about 5:1 to about 1:5.
Example 4 of Chen (¶[0095]-[0096]) is particularly instructive, disclosing the use of insecticide at 33% w/w, within the applicant’s claimed range; the steric stabilizers 1% Atlox 4913 (methyl methacrylate graft copolymer, HLB 10-18) and 3% EO-PO nonionic surfactant (a block copolymer of polyalkylene oxide), both species explicitly recited in the applicant’s Markush group; the static stabilizer1% Morwet D425 (an alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and (C1-C16)-alkylnaphthalenesulfonate/formaldehyde condensate), a species explicitly recited in the applicant’s Markush group; the ratio of the steric stabilizer Atlox 4913 to the static stabilizer Morwet D425 is 1:1, and the ratio of the combined steric stabilizers to the static stabilizer is 4:1, both falling within the claimed range of about 5:1 to 1:5. Chen also teaches a preferred particle size distribution D50 of 2-20 microns (¶[0077]), encompassing the D50 range of 2-10 microns of claim 22.
Lin expressly teaches chlorantraniliprole formulated as an aqueous suspension concentrate stabilized by a combination of steric and static stabilizers, including EO-PO block copolymers and sodium lignosulfonate, thereby addressing the specific insecticide now emphasized in amended claim 8.
While Chen uses flubendiamide (a diamide insecticide) rather than the specifically recited chlorantraniliprole, Lin explicitly teaches the use of chlorantraniliprole in aqueous suspension concentrates. Lin’s Example 7 discloses a formulation comprising chlorantraniliprole stabilized with a combination of an EO-PO block copolymer (a steric stabilizer) and sodium lignosulfonate (a static stabilizer).
The applicant argues that Chen and Lin fail to disclose or suggest the specific insecticide pairings recited in amended claim 8, including combinations of chlorantraniliprole with clothianidin, chlorfenapyr, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, diflubenzuron, or flupyrimin. This argument is not persuasive.
Lin explicitly teaches combining insecticides to broaden spectrum and improve efficacy (Abstract), and expressly discloses chlorantraniliprole as a well-known diamide insecticide suitable for aqueous suspension concentrates. Chen teaches the use of clothianidin. The combination of multiple insecticides from known classes for resistance management and spectrum broadening represents a routine and well-established practice in pesticide formulation. The selection of specific insecticide pairings from a finite number of known alternatives constitutes an obvious choice absent evidence of unexpected results. Moreover, the claimed Markush group merely enumerates combinations of known insecticides, each individually taught in the art to be suitable for aqueous suspension concentrates. Such combinations represent predictable variations within the scope of ordinary skill.
A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to formulate a stable aqueous composition with a diamide insecticide would look to Chen’s formulation as a successful model. Recognizing that chlorantraniliprole is a well-known diamide insecticide, as taught by Lin, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute flubendiamide in Chen’s formulation with chlorantraniliprole. This substitution of one known diamide insecticide for another is a simple and predictable substitution, yielding the expected result of a stable insecticidal composition. The other combinations recited in Claim 8's Markush group, such as "chlorantraniliprole and clothianidin," are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Chen (which lists clothianidin as a suitable insecticide at ¶[0058]) and Lin (which teaches chlorantraniliprole). Combining these two well-known active ingredients with complementary spectra of activity to broaden efficacy is a routine and obvious formulation strategy.
The applicant’s argument that the references fail to teach the "specific combination" is unpersuasive. The test for obviousness is whether the combined teachings of the references would have suggested the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Chen provides the formulation blueprint, and Lin provides the motivation to use the specific chlorantraniliprole insecticide within that blueprint and combine insecticides.
The applicant asserts that the cited references fail to teach or suggest selection of a steric stabilizer having an HLB value of 10-18 and fail to disclose the claimed steric-to-static stabilizer ratio. These arguments are likewise unpersuasive. Chen expressly discloses steric stabilizers such as acrylic graft copolymers and EO-PO block copolymers that are commercially known and characterized by HLB values within the claimed range. The HLB of such nonionic surfactants is a well-known and published property, and selecting a surfactant within a target HLB range to achieve dispersion stability is a matter of routine formulation design.
With respect to the stabilizer ratio, Chen’s disclosed examples include steric-to-static stabilizer ratios that fall squarely within the claimed range. Chen’s Atlox 4913 and EO-PO surfactants are known to those in the art to possess HLB values within the claimed range of 10-18. The purpose of a steric stabilizer is to provide steric stabilization, and selecting one with an appropriate HLB for an oil-in-water system is a matter of routine optimization, not invention. Even where precise ratios are not expressly recited, determining an effective ratio between steric and static stabilizers to stabilize a given solids loading is a matter of routine optimization, not inventive activity.
The applicant contends that there is no motivation to combine Chen and Lin with a reasonable expectation of success. The examiner disagrees. Lin expressly teaches chlorantraniliprole as suitable for aqueous suspension concentrates stabilized by steric and static stabilizers. Chen teaches a robust and broadly applicable stabilization system for insecticide suspensions, including diamide insecticides such as flubendiamide. Substituting one known diamide insecticide (chlorantraniliprole) for another (flubendiamide) in Chen’s formulation would have been an obvious substitution yielding predictable results. The prior art therefore provides both motivation and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 23 further recites a particle size distribution D90 ranging from 10 to 20 microns. Chen itself teaches milling to achieve a D50 of 2-20 microns, but does not explicitly disclose the D90 limitation. Torrent-Parker teaches aqueous insecticidal compositions with a stabilization system comprising steric and static stabilizers and subjected to milling to achieve controlled particle size distributions. It further teaches that the composition can be milled to achieve a D95 below 150 microns (¶[0087]), a range that broadly encompasses the claimed D90 range.
DeSousa further provides evidence that routine wet milling of suspension concentrates to achieve D50 values below 10 microns and D90 values below 30 microns was well known in the art. DeSousa teaches a process for preparing suspension concentrate formulations, wherein an "optional step, the dispersion may be wet milled to reduce the average median particle size D50 ... to less than about 10 µm and average particle size D90 ... to less than about 30 µm" (¶[0102]). This directly teaches the desirability and methodology for achieving the claimed D90 range of 10-20 microns. Thus, achieving a D90 of 10–20 microns through routine adjustment of milling parameters constitutes standard practice in the formulation of aqueous suspension concentrates. Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed D90 range.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, having arrived at the obvious composition of claim 8, would naturally seek to optimize its physical stability and biological efficacy. It is obvious in the art of suspension concentrates that particle size distribution is a critical parameter affecting suspension stability, bioavailability, and application properties. The Specification itself acknowledges this standard practice, stating that such formulations are prepared by "comminuting the active ingredient particles down to the desired particle size, which is normally below 10 μm" (¶[0003] and ¶[0176]). DeSousa provides the direct teaching and motivation to control the D90 particle size to within the claimed range through routine wet milling. Applying this known and conventional process optimization to the obvious composition of claim 8 does not result in a non-obvious invention.
In summary, the applicant’s amendments and arguments have been carefully considered but do not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. The claimed compositions represent predictable variations of known aqueous insecticidal suspension concentrates employing known insecticides, known stabilization systems, and routine optimization of component ratios and particle size distributions. Accordingly, claims 8, 14, 22 and 23 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lin, and further in view of Torrent-Parker, as evidenced by DeSousa.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615